Will to Power

Parodites views ontology, to use a word for "what is" insofar as it is interesting to philosophy, as deeply personal. He thus gets to take a very impersonal stance before it. I have the opposite paradigm. So did Nietzsche.

Will to power is most beautiful not because it gives an actual unifying view of what is. This is where people stumble. No, its beauty is in the emptyness about it, the lack of unity.

What I was saying about Parodites and ontology and the personal. He takes the world as first one and then the world one enters. I view it in the opposite way. There is no diacrepancy in our understandings of the existence of either. It is a question of hierarchy. I could care less about just how it is I come to be engaged in the world. This is what will to power is, the irreducible fact of how I engage the world, not irreducible scientifically, just in terms of how far it is worth giving a fuck.

This realization is more true than logic, about how what matters precedes matter. And since no appreciation about what matters can be final, thus not peace but more war. In fact, not the final what matters matters, but that further evolution of what it is that matters is possible. Thus will to power only wills will to power.

Nietzsche was never a final answer to anything. He was a key to unlock the future. In his bragging, this is all he said, all he cared about. That since the first greeks to do it, he was the single greatest partition, that he ushered in a new era. That no one listened to him didn't bother him one bit. The key had turned, the lock has been unlocked. It is only a matter of time.

I was thinking about this just the other day, that to view something objectively one must subtract oneself from it, dissociate from any personal views or matters or concerns or truths; this is the scientific ideal of objectivity, and most people instinctively follow it when it comes to 'ontological' concerns, they think to themselves, "oh I cannot acknowledge how I really think and feel about any of this, that would not be fair, that would be too personal," so they proceed to become a non-self and submit themselves to some sort of exteriority that promises to have nothing of themselves in it at all.

That is basically what religions and gods have been too, as I see it. Fixed said elsewhere that God has become having true friends, and yes I agree that God has always been just a lack of true friends. In this way a weird kind of "objectivity will" that silences the individual precisely where the individual wanted or needed to speak. Now sciences have taken over that function of non-selfing the individual so that an "objectivity" can be found.

The need for an objectivity is just the social need, which is a sublimated inter-reality need that everything has to negotiate itself with the world around it. We need other people, we need society to some minimal degree, we need to make accurate appraisals of things if we are not to die, and this need has been falsely called objectivity, which has falsely been used to subvert and crush the individual self under the false image of the world without the individual, even more so of the world anathema to the individual.

"The world as such", what the fuck could that even mean. Fuck that nonsense. Only a being, an individual, a self, could be the cause of such a thing as "the world as such" to come into being.

So in contrast to the will to the total objectivity that we see in religion and science and common deadhead humanity, which will to total objectivity is swallowing the individual whole and killing him in the very image of the world that the individual himself has made and consents to making, philosophy takes the opposite path and wills to the total subjectivity, to the individual, to perspective-having, to speaking as knowing, to power relations that extend from the individual outward. I see in Parodites' philosophy a supreme ascension of both the objective and subjective together, each taken to limit and develop the other, until a massive system is reached whereby the depths of the individual subject can be ascertained with 'objective' clarity, and whereby the heights of the possibilities in the world and future can be understood with 'subjective' passion and purpose. We could interject a thousand different purposes and passions here into this drive to world-future, to will to power or as will to power, for example, but which could be higher and more noble than the development properly of the self to itself, for itself and by itself, as its truths pushed into and upon and as the 'world as such'? Philosophy is still the highest goal. My aim is to reconcile Nietzsche and Parodites, because Parodites subsumes Nietzsche with his four-stage model of subjective development over history and all of the ontoepistemologistics of that. This makes sense to me, because Nietzsche definitely fits into that category as Parodites describes, for example with respect to the Xtian subject and what this means in terms of pure subjectivity-need and -possibility, but of course we all find so much more in Nietzsche and the ancient Greeks for that matter than this same will to the objective that has led to the development of scientific enslavement of man, or this same will to the subjective that translated in common human terms means nothing more than a will to not-care, to not-be, to not-need-to-give-a-shit. Yeah, there are a lot of things I do not give a shit about, but mostly those things are the people who themselves are not-give-a-shitters and the stupid shit they are already saying and doing.

But to get back on track here, Pezer you view the world very impersonally and thus you take a very personal stance toward it, is that correct? Your world-relations are impersonal by nature, your vision of this 'other' to yourself is impersonal because it is just this other-thing anyway, and therefore your self-view shines and takes precedence over all of those relations... yes this is a very Nietzschean sort of view I think, although it is difficult because Nietzsche also like Parodites I would say does try to develop both objective and subjective according to their own lines and then weave those two lines together ultimately. I am largely on this same philosophical method, I like to do this too, but when it comes down to it I must allow any objectivity to fall into my subjectivity so that I do not cease to exist in the process of knowing.  

I wrote elsewhere that knowing is, ultimately, for its own sake, destructive of the individual, of being itself, of life. Knowing should not come at the expense of being. Well if it does, then one ends up not-being for the sake of much knowing, and so long as this can translate into some works of art or philosophy or literature then at least this suicidal act can have good effects for others who can learn that expanded knowledge without needing to make the same sacrifices. Again, I would put Nietzsche definitely into that category... he sacrificed his life and sanity to achieve new heights of knowledge, and we should not forget that the only way to actually discover and create these new heights when it comes to truth and knowledge is to do so by war and blood, by deep pain, because such insights must be for the first time ripped directly from reality. We need to need to do that, or it will never get done. Only later, after these insights have been torn from reality and copied down somehow into a human text of some sort, can other people benignly 'read them' and passively understand them without so much need for pain. But the more severe the insight, the more need for pain lingers even in the copies.

I agree that Nietzsche gave us few answers. But he did tell us to ask questions. This is sometimes more important than the answers.

I still do like "The Will To Power" very much. I still hold that he was telling us to have the will to take power of our own destiny as opposed to allowing others, especially religious institutions, to dictate how we should live our life.

And I still hold that having power over my self is much more important than having power over others.

I don't believe that Nietzsche was speaking to the multitudes in "The Will To Power" but rather to the individual.

So I suppose the phrase "the lack of unity" because he didn't want to create a new religion but rather to destroy an old one.

I enjoy talking about objective vs subjective especially when it relates to "truths".

Nietzsche was very good at that.

Sisyphus

I think that is a thoroughly good thing to take away from Nietzsche. In so far as you can separate him from the philosophical traditon he was embedded in and struggled with, to be a sort of guide to health for all human of all ages, this is the best lesson. To care first about what it is one can make of the world, to trust one's instincts in this respect.

Yeah, kick-ass.


Thrasymachus

My vision of the world is not impersonal. It is very personal. It is the world I see as impersonal.

Objectivity is not posisble. If one manages to substract all conscious bias, I can assure you the subconscious one's will make themselves manifest. Nietzsche was an excercice in owning the subconscious, or owning up to it. Claiming it. To speak from the deepest levels of bias and thus make them a descision rather than accidents, orphaned choices.

Pezer wrote:

Sisyphus

I think that is a thoroughly good thing to take away from Nietzsche. In so far as you can separate him from the philosophical traditon he was embedded in and struggled with, to be a sort of guide to health for all human of all ages, this is the best lesson. To care first about what it is one can make of the world, to trust one's instincts in this respect.

Yeah, kick-ass.


Thrasymachus

My vision of the world is not impersonal. It is very personal. It is the world I see as impersonal.

Objectivity is not posisble. If one manages to substract all conscious bias, I can assure you the subconscious one's will make themselves manifest. Nietzsche was an excercice in owning the subconscious, or owning up to it. Claiming it. To speak from the deepest levels of bias and thus make them a descision rather than accidents, orphaned choices.

Yes, I meant that you see the world itself as being impersonal, and thus you are free to see your own relationship to the world as a very personal thing, because all of the meaning comes from your end only.

I like that.

Yeah we should own and own up to the subconscious, as Nietzsche tried to do. This makes for good philosophizing and good writing. It is the reason that Nietzsche is almost the only philosopher in history who is not boring as fuck to read.

And then as you say, when we do this, we open up the possibility of actual choices. Very nice insight.

Pezer wrote:

Parodites views ontology, to use a word for "what is" insofar as it is interesting to philosophy, as deeply personal. He thus gets to take a very impersonal stance before it. I have the opposite paradigm. So did Nietzsche.

Will to power is most beautiful not because it gives an actual unifying view of what is. This is where people stumble. No, its beauty is in the emptyness about it, the lack of unity.

Correct. Hence "monster of energy". This is not a hospitable place, nor in fact a place at all.
Value ontology, or self-valuing logic, thus posits every manifest perspective, i.e. every "honest bias" as the center of being.
There is no circumference or shape to the world, there is no "world as such" - there is a battle of biases. That is all there is. And that, strangely, is objectively irreducible as truth.

The mistake most readers of Nietzsche until me have made is that they assumed that the wil to power is "just there" and one needs to "accept it" and "affirm it". But that is a misunderstanding of the will to power. The only way N can be understood is as recognition of a savage will that finds in the absence of anything else its means to cultivation.

Hence, there is to me no power in my universe besides self-valuing logic, which is the form of my power. And all I tell anyone is: destroy it. "Go on, break it. It aint sacred. It aint holy. Squeeze it until it turns to guacamole".

Except it will break your fingers when you try. But thats not my problem.

Quote :

This is what will to power is, the irreducible fact of how I engage the world, not irreducible scientifically, just in terms of how far it is worth giving a fuck.

Thats very good.
But that, at the end of all logical work, turns out to be the very ground of science, and thus the substance of all scientific definitions, i.e. of all the "things" that have been scientifically identified.

Quote :

This realization is more true than logic, about how what matters precedes matter. And since no appreciation about what matters can be final, thus not peace but more war. In fact, not the final what matters matters, but that further evolution of what it is that matters is possible. Thus will to power only wills will to power.

Exactly. This is ethics as I have understood it in 2004 when in a tapas bar I bit into a chicken spine and received a vision of the pure banality of natures ways with itself. There is only "creating-onward" where ones "self" is merely a means to whatever moments may come that truly have substance of entity.

A person is not an entity. A persons best moments are hints of the entity that has been called "soul", and which a person is a means to attain.

Quote :

]Nietzsche was never a final answer to anything. He was a key to unlock the future. In his bragging, this is all he said, all he cared about.

Haha yes, exactly!! And it in his bragging that we find his best moments. Both most arbitrary and most absolute.

Quote :

That since the first greeks to do it, he was the single greatest partition, that he ushered in a new era. That no one listened to him didn't bother him one bit. The key had turned, the lock has been unlocked. It is only a matter of time.

In fact he made sure only people with strong stomachs would be able to listen to him. All other "attention" is pure pollution. Equally with what I have written that is worthy, that has world-shaping power.

Ill add that the scientific standard of objectively repeatable isolated instances does not in fact refer to the object of observation in these instances, but to the instance of observation itself.

What science comes down to is the objectification of method. And this is itself a brutish, savage will to power that seeks to cultivate itself by usurping all that has pretence of being but is not yet being. Potential becomes being by being usurped by this or that. Hence, woman. But humanity in general, and its tragic and self-defeating and mortal and lethal ways. Here is an entrance for Parodies' concepts of Negation and Excess. And this is how self-valuing and Will to Power needs be seen - as cannibalistic, yet even more prolific, as prolific so as not being able to usurp itself entirely. "Running ahead of itself" "First over the wall, Alexander".

Being did not exist in or for Socrates or Plato. It did exist in the cryptic, un-decrypted men from Ionia, the Thales and them. And it emerged again in Nietzsche. But any philosophy that smoothly refers and reflects rather than jaggedly positing simply is less than existence. And the does not only go for philosophy. Humanity at this point barely exists, because it does not posit itself - and with reason, as there are too many and too much destructive power. We need to find means for excessive positing that do not directly erode all physical ground. This is the new subtlety we are after, Nietzsche and I. I won't speak for anyone else. Earth Molecule.

But this is the whole end-all of lesser philosophy. The ignoble urge to be understood.
What man wants to be understood? Don't men lose their honor by being as shallow - as logical - as to be understood?
Only the honorless seek to be recognized in general terms.

To understand oneself in such a way is a direct negation of ones entity. One only exists in so far as one is misunderstood. Why animals are too wise to have learned speech, and why speech only serves, through our wisdom which hides itself from our conscious grasp, to bring about false images and misunderstanding. Lastly, why I have subjected language to valuing, to smell.

"...that they assumed that the wil to power is 'just there' and one needs to 'accept it' and 'affirm it'."

If one needs to accept or affirm it, one misses the point. Will to power brings nothing new to the table in terms of what is there. It just points to the place where caring about what is there begins.

If I don't care about it, if it doesn't matter, it is not there. Thus a person that has evolved to caring about things that don't matter to others will have created something that thosr others will not see. The genesis of it is that it matters. But what matters about it is not it in itself, but that it matters.

Pezer wrote:

"...that they assumed that the wil to power is 'just there' and one needs to 'accept it' and 'affirm it'."

If one needs to accept or affirm it,  one misses the point. Will to power brings nothing new to the table in terms of what is there. It just points to the place where caring about what is there begins.

If I don't care about it, if it doesn't matter, it is not there. Thus a person that has evolved to caring about things that don't matter to others will have created something that thosr others will not see. The genesis of it is that it matters. But what matters about it is not it in itself, but that it matters.

Hence, the primacy of value over neutrality and objectivity, and deeper, valuing as the ground to value.
Self-valuing, finally, as consistency of valuing. That, in the final instance, is what can be said to exist, what keeps itself in existence, using "the creation of the world" as a means to its own existence, entirely separate of this world besides ones arbitrary and predatory and as well as recklessly bestowing stake in it.

Philosophy at its boldest is simply man attaining his own animal nature... man attaining to existence, Mind being born from the muddy passivity of concepts. Mind is the most predatory animal on this planet. It happens very rarely that a person has any control over his own mind, in almost all cases, a proto-mind that operates through collective conceptuality devours persons each time they attempt to touch their own stake in that mind. Mind bites. Mind is shark-like. "Devils in the dark, bit of a shark."

So what Im saying is that to become existent, one must eat ones way into shark-territory.
Truth is a wife one may find when one has broken from sub-existence into war. Before war there is only lie, lies are the first reality.

I think incidentally that this is why wilder women are attracted to philosophers with unreasonable passion - philosophers, absent the boldest criminals, are the only sharks, or wolves, or predators, the only animals among humans. That is to say, they exist, which is attractive. Or, why to be legislator one has to commit a primordial crime, and step on previous codes with sublime insolence and muddy, bloody feet.

Yep. Like DiCaprio, all business.

VO

Thrasymachus wrote:

Yep. Like DiCaprio, all business.

VO

Haha
yes yes

And also,

Smoke In The Fire


Damn man.

We are making this world our business. That is this worlds best hope of emerging into being.
Everyone who exists is thankful. Or: no shark is indifferent to blood.

Lincoln hit that beat from the heights

Word


Haha, sorry but I cannot avoid it. There is some series fire in this shit. Unreal. Also in your music.

Pezer I am still here, just formatting myself and formulating myself to re-engage in proper time and space. All good things come to those who tell Fate to fuck off. Or to take her clothes off.

I never sub existed. I'm like Neo, born into the shit.

Nah, just playin'.

I just wanted to make a point. About will to power. It itself is no big deal.

Also, that the world is not personal. It is personood that was born to deal with the world.

So is the necessity of war a taboo subject now, merely because we might personally suffer of it, or have suffered it?

Pezer wrote:

Sisyphus

I think that is a thoroughly good thing to take away from Nietzsche. In so far as you can separate him from the philosophical traditon he was embedded in and struggled with, to be a sort of guide to health for all human of all ages, this is the best lesson. To care first about what it is one can make of the world, to trust one's instincts in this respect.

Thanks.

Thrasymachus wrote:

And also,

Smoke In The Fire


Damn man.

Yeah, smoke on the water too.

Pezer wrote:

I never sub existed. I'm like Neo, born into the shit.

Obviously.
This is the whole point of my politics. That a standard actually exists, that I don't need to invent some bullshit.

Quote :

I just wanted to make a point. About will to power. It itself is no big deal.

It was a good point. It is the point my philosophy is made of, but you make it better than I do sometimes. You'll have to face, at one point, being powerful.

Quote :

Also, that the world is not personal. It is personood that was born to deal with the world.

One only has to dwell in a city for an afternoon to know that the world is anything besides personal. The more persons on the street, the emptier the world becomes, too. It is most personable to me as it was to Nietzsche, when I am alone in the forest, in storm or rain, in snow - most intimate with the world when it comes down from the heights. That also means, in the company of philosophers.

Capable - can't wait to get back to music.